to the castle!

8/12/2019 To The Castle!

1/81

Nottinghams crowdsin the Reform Riots

Summer 2010http://peopleshistreh.wordpress.com/


2/81


3/81

Introduction......................................................................................4

1. The Setting.....................................................................................7

1.1. The reputation of Nottinghams crowds ....................................................... 71.2. The Garden Town sinks into slime............................................................81.3. Industry in Nottingham .............................................................................. 10

1.4. Living and working conditions ................................................................... 121.5. The struggle for parliamentary reform....................................................... 142. The Reform Riots......................................................................... 19

2.1. Sunday......................................................................................................... 192.2. Monday .......................................................................................................222.3. Tuesday.......................................................................................................252.4. Wednesday and Thursday .......................................................................... 272.5. Riots in other parts of the country .............................................................28

3. The aftermath............................................................................. 30

3.1. Praise for the soldiers, the scaffold for the rioters .....................................303.2. Newcastles compensation..........................................................................343.3. The Third Reform Bill................................................................................. 37

4. Looking at and glimpsing into the crowd .................................... 40

4.1. Dreading the crowds ...................................................................................404.2. Spotting faces in the crowd ........................................................................424.3. Rioting for the Reform Bill, bounty or class war?......................................44

Conclusion ......................................................................................50

Bibliography....................................................................................53

Appendix.........................................................................................55

I.Timeline of the Nottingham Reform Riots .....................................................55II. Alleged rioters...............................................................................................59III. The early nineteenth century electoral system ...........................................62IV. The Castle.....................................................................................................64

V. The attack on Colwick Hall ...........................................................................65VI. Impressions of a burning castle...................................................................66VII. The attack on Lowes mill...........................................................................67

VIII. The shooting of Thomas Aukland.............................................................68IX. The Special Assize........................................................................................69X. Miscellaneous.................................................................................................71XI. Maps............................................................................................................. 72XII. Images ........................................................................................................ 79


4/81

- 4 -

Introduction

New deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has described the ConDem governmentsplans to reform politics as: The biggest shake up of our democracy since 1832, whenthe Great Reform Act redrew the boundaries of British democracy.2

The current administrations plans to hold a referendum to adjust some aspects of their

Westminster playground, and the rather astounding hopes some people3

pin on this4

, provide anopportunity to take a closer look at the circumstances of the Reform Acts passing. This paperdoes so from a local perspective as it deals with the riots in Nottingham following the rejection ofthe Second Reform Bill in the House of Lords in 1831. It looks into the question of who the rioterswere, and what motivated them to engage in their direct action.

The history of Nottingham can be depicted as a long history of social struggles, which wereoften fuelled by the economic distress of the towns inhabitants (see 1.1.-1.4.). This interpretationformed the basis of two core theses: stating firstly that, as on numerous other occasions in thetowns history, also in the Reform Riots the crowds consisted primarily of persons who can bedefined as members of the working classes5; and secondly, that their actions were motivated bymore than just disappointed enthusiasm for the Reform Bill.

The decision to focus on said research question to be tested by the two core theses was taken inan early stage of the working process. It has been tempting to stick to classical and comfortablepatterns of interpretation, and analyse the Reform Bill Crisis as a tame version of the fierceclashes in France between a rising bourgeoisie, aided by a working class tail 6, and anaristocracy clinging on to their privileges. This, however, would oversimplify the complex issuesand therefore distort any result. It would require most extensive deliberations of those aspects ofthe totality of social relations deemed necessary to sufficiently analyse how the working, middleand ruling classes constituted and constantly transformed each other in the socioeconomicprocesses leading up to the Reform Act of 1832. Therefore no attempt was made to engage insuch a mammoth project, but the focus was rather placed on a specific groups actions during theReform Bill Crisis, i.e. those rioters who fought in October 1831 in the town of Nottingham.

Accounts of the Reform Bill Crisis are plentiful, especially regarding aspects such as the

proceedings within Westminster, and even though a number of accounts of the riots inNottingham have been published, the rioters have not been described and debated in detail, withthe exception of single and brief article which could not rectify the problem of a distinct:

[] vagueness about the participants in the riots, who have always been riotersrather than actual people with a real identity, a crowd of people rather thanindividuals who make up a crowd.7

2Nottingham Indymedia; p. 3.3In this paper gender neutral terms like people or person are used whenever possible. On occasions when gendered personalpronouns do not refer to specific persons, forms like her/his or s*he are used. The resulting disturbance in the reading processis intended.4See Bragg.5 The use of the term classes rather than class is used to reflect the divisions within those who were yet to become theproletarians. See Hobsbawm (b); p. 120: Class does not define an isolated group of persons, but rather a system of horizontal andvertical relations, expressing differences and alikeness but also social functions of exploitation, power and subjection. SeeHolstun; pp. 96/107: The social relation expressed by the term class is primary one of exploitation taking differing shapes indifferent historical situations. Exploitation and resistance against it can always be seen as forms of class struggle/class war, evenif a class consciousness in the sense of a shared consciousness of a ones position within the predominant mode of production hasnot yet developed or has not been adopted. Even though for Holstun class consciousness is the necessary precondition for usingthe category class, it is already a form of class consciousness if someone acts according to her/his position within the mode ofproduction, even though the same is not consciously reflected.6Thompson; pp. 216-7.7Thomis/Preston/Wigley; p. 82.


5/81

- 5 -

Also in this paper the terms rioters and crowds are used extensively, not least to improvereading fluency, but it goes one step further than most other accounts of the direct action, bylooking not only at the crowds as bodies of people, but also by looking into the crowds to spotindividuals whilst providing a historical framework contextualising the political andsocioeconomic circumstances of their actions.

In order to do so, a number of sources have been used. To start with, there were variousgeneral works on the history of Nottingham, none of which would be complete without at least

mentioning the Reform Riots and the destruction of Nottingham Castle. Noteworthy examplesfor such works include BrysonsPortrait of Nottingham or an article by Gray in the Transactionsof the Thoroton Society of Nottinghamshire. Classic descriptions of the town such as in DefoesATour Through the Whole Islandor Deerings The History of Nottingham, both written in theseventeenth century, proved to be entertaining and useful. Thomis Politics and Society inNottingham 1785-1835 was indispensable, although also often infuriating. Specific informationon and interpretations of the Reform Bill Crisis are entailed in works of Dinwiddy and Wright,but it would be an outrage not to also mention Thompsons epic TheMaking of the EnglishWorking Class. Hernon, Thomis, Preston and Wigley provided some information of the ReformRiots in Nottingham and other parts of Britain. Edited sources and summaries in Wylly orFellows and Freeman provided detailed accounts of the events in Nottingham and reflected the

militarys perception of the rioters and their actions. Brilliant fun and an invaluable source forthe Nottingham riots and their aftermath are Hicklins hilarious The History of NottinghamCastle, written only five years after the events, and the carefully edited Diaries of the FourthDuke of Newcastle-Under-Lynethe latter providing crucial evidence for all aspects discussed inthis paper. The main body of information about the Reform Riots in Nottingham, their aftermathand the rioting persons was excerpted from various editions of the local newspapers Journal,Mercury and Review. Further evidence could be extracted from various unedited sources,notably the Calendar of the Prisoners an extensive list of those who were to be put on trialbefore the Special Assize in 1832.

To shed some light into the research question by testing the two core theses required not onlya description and debate of the riots themselves, but also extensive information and discussion oftheir historical context. Therefore the first chapter starts by sketching Nottinghams riotoushistory, in which the towns inhabitants were used to engage in direct action (see 1.1.). Adescription and debate of the towns and its industries development (see 1.2/1.3.) and the livingand working conditions of its inhabitants (see 1.4.) fills the next subchapters. Various aspects ofthe complex processes of the struggle for parliamentary reform up to the rejection of the secondReform Bill by the House of Lords are depicted and discussed in 1.5. The events which becameknown as the Reform Riots are described in the second chapter, with an extensive,chronologically arranged, description of events in and near the town of Nottingham (see 2.1.-2.4.)and a brief summary of events in other parts of Britain (see 2.5.). The third chapter firstly focuseson the prosecution of the rioters (see 3.1.), subchapter 3.2. then discusses questions repeatedlyraised regarding the conduct of the towns officials during the riots which were relevant to e.g. thecompensation claims raised after the destruction of Nottingham Castle. At the end of this chapter

the events leading up to the 1832 Reform Act and its consequences are briefly outlined (see 3.3.).Chapter four focuses on the rioters themselves. It does so by trying to identify patterns in thedescriptions of the rioting crowds by their contemporaries, referring to concepts of crowdpsychology drawn up at the end of the nineteenth century (see 4.1.). After looking at the crowdsof rioters as a whole, the excerpted evidence is analysed as to whether it provides information ofindividuals engaged in the direct action (see 4.2.). After establishing an understanding of who therioters were, the following subchapter (4.3.) discusses their possible motivations. As attempts todevelop monocausal explanations for historical events are always doomed to fail, argumentsstated by the rioters contemporaries and in historical accounts are critically debated, and the


6/81

- 6 -

empirical data extracted from the used sources analysed and discussed to develop a multilayeredunderstanding of the rioters set of motivations. Finally, conclusion and bibliography are followedby an Appendix in which e.g. the empirical data are presented in various tables, along with maps,images and a number of lengthy quotations of primary sources.


7/81

- 7 -

1. The Setting

1.1. The reputation of Nottinghams crowds

Through most of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the characteristicsounds in Nottingham were the noise of jeering crowds, the whine of musketballs and the smashing of glass.8

Nottingham has been described as a Banner town, always at or near the front of ReformMovements.9Its inhabitants had a distinct reputation for being a combustible and dangerousmob, living up to a long tradition of political and religious dissent.10 Defying patriarchalstandards, women are known to have actively participated in, and often led, protests and riots.11It it is very clear that [] the people of Nottingham were [] accustomed to taking the law intotheir own hands when the occasion demanded it.12Crowds resorted to various forms of directaction primarily whenever the miserable living conditions became unbearable. Regularoccurrences were food riots, especially in the mid to late eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries.A better known example is the Great Cheese Riot of 1766 which was sparked by farmers asking anunusually high price for cheese during Goose Fair. Crowds of people grabbed huge cheese wheels

and either carted them off or rolled them like hoops down Wheeler Gate, bowling over the Mayorin the process.13As the few constables controlled by the magistrates were unable to effectively suppress the

ten thousand or more people who would visit Nottingham marketplace on a Saturday,14it wasoften the the sabre-swishing military which dispersed crowds, repeatedly resulting in a fewcorpses being added to the rubble.15

Even though the overwhelming majority of the people of Nottingham were not eligible forvoting16 many people took an active part in parliamentary politics by engaging in electioncampaigns.17 In early nineteenth century Nottingham, the militaristic language of modernparliamentary politics had a very real meaning as election campaigns were often fought in thevery sense of the word as pitched battles between hired armies the Blue Innocents and theYellow Lambs were part and parcel of the Nottingham election scene.18

8Bryson; p. 127.9Wyncoll; p. 19.10 Thomis (a); pp. 1-2: Nottinghams inhabitants have also been described as people who often thought for themselves andformed their opinions without regard to title or wealth.11See Thomis (b); pp. 22-3: Better known examples of women being engaged in protests and riots occurred in 1812 when onvarious occasions people took on the role of Lady Ludd whilst putting themselves at the head of a riot. See OBrien; pp. 4/8-10:When womens political activities are mentioned at all, the majority of historical accounts only refer to womens involvement infood riots. Ignoring e.g. the activities of women trade unionists is a strategy to reaffirm patriarchal notions as it seems moreacceptable for women to act over food prices because this accords with the idea that they are, and always have been, domesticcentred.12Thomis (a); p. 7.13Bryson; pp. 127-8. See ibid for descriptions of other food riots, e.g. in 1788, 1792 and 1800. See Thompson; pp. 67-8/70/72: Inthis early stage of industrial capitalism not wages, but the cost of bread was the most sensitive indicator of popular discontent.14Thomis (a); p. 7.15Bryson; p. 129. See ibid; p. 90: The list of riots and uprisings in county and town is a long one, most famous is probably theemergence of Luddism which eventually tied up more troops in the region than Wellington took with him to fight the PeninsularWar.16Thomis (a); p. 143: The electorate consisted of the towns burgesses, i.e. eligible males, e.g. 40/- freeholders, those who hadbeen made honorary burgesses, or people who passed an apprenticeship. The last criterion made it possible for a relatively largenumber of framework knitters to hold the franchise, making the Nottingham electorate a mixture of property owners but alsomembers of the working classes. The size of the electorate before 1832 is hard to estimate. According to the rather vague numbersmentioned by Thomis it was slightly less than ten percent of the total population, which is a comparatively high proportion ofinhabitants.17Bryson; p. 127. See Thomis (a); p. 143: The electorate was predominately voting for Whig candidates since 1818.18Bryson; pp. 129-30. See ibid for more information regarding hired mobs and related fighting amongst the working classes.They formed Loyalist mobs to hold running battles with the Democrats who sympathised with the French Revolutionaries.


8/81

- 8 -

In a nutshell, economical despair, politics and religious matters fuelled social tensions inNottingham and riots occurred regularly,19 averaging one a year around at the turn of thecentury. However at the end of the 1820s the town had lost much of its tumultuous reputation,with inhabitants even keeping orderliness in the harsh winter of 1829-30. By 1830 Nottinghamwas even referred to as a peaceful town, a description that was not going to be used after October1831 when the riots brought the town in the spotlight of national attention and the spirit ofNottingham and Derby was often referred to with anxiety.20

1.2. The Garden Town sinks into slime

In the mid eighteenth century, Nottingham was described as a one of the most pleasant andbeautiful towns in England.21This was when:

[] the back-to-back slums had not even begun to appear; when the Meadows eachspring were a carpet of crocus, and the population was not too large to be adequatelycontained within the towns boundaries; and when the stocking industry was scarcelyin its infancy.22

Whether mid seventeenth century Nottingham really was such an idyllic, beautiful place, a

garden town23

and if it was, the question who mowed the lawns is here less relevant than theprocess which was to occur within a few decades, by which Nottingham, allegedly one of themost pleasant towns in Britain and even Europe began to sink rapidly into slime.24

Whilst most of the towns which became industrial centres grew not only in population, butalso in area25, Nottingham did not. Indeed the population had outgrown the unchanged medievaltown boundaries well before the 1830s. At the beginning of the nineteenth century there were8,000 houses crammed in 132 streets, off which ran 308 courts and alleyways, housing in 180128,801 inhabitants on the same perimeter of one and miles26where only 9,890 people lived in1739.27By 1831 the population was to increase further to 50,000.28With a statistical average ofjust over ten square yards for each person, the centre of Nottingham had a higher populationdensity than London or indeed any other place in the British Isles.29

Nottingham was surrounded by areas in which various protagonists held inviolable propertyrights. On the west the expansion of the town was blocked by the Duke of NewcastlesNottingham Park and Lord Middletons Wollaton Park. On the east there was Colwick parish,

With the tacit consent of the magistrates, hooligans were organised into ducking parties to baptise Democrats under the pumpsor in the river.19 Ibid; p. 128: In 1799 an army chaplain complained that in the seventeen years he had been in Nottingham there had beenseventeen riots.20 Thomis/Preston/Wigley; p. 88/95. See Journal; 15th October 1831; 15th October 1831: Indeed this was one of the majorconcerns of theJournalafter the Reform Riots: [] we feel for the credit of our town.21Defoe; p. 451. See ibid; pp. 451-6: Defoes description of the town is quite charming. It does not only allow a glimpse at mid-seventeenth century Nottingham but also its visitor. Defoe wrote primarily about the castle and the beer, leaving the readerspeculating whether his stay entailed nothing but arrival and getting drunk in Ye Olde Trip To Jerusalem.22Gray; p. 30.23Bryson; p. 75: He describes Nottingham as a town in a garden complete with a permanent Maypole.24Ibid; p. 83: From a garden city [Nottingham] turned into a slum second only to Bombay throughout the whole Empire.25Gray; p. 30.26 Kayne; pp. 93/98: He refers to the first census of 1801, based on data collected by town officials noting names, sex, age,occupations, etc. of persons present in a specific house at the time of their visit. That this imprecise method was far more efficientthan previous ones demonstrates that, whilst all empirical data has be treated with caution, especially figures deriving fromhistorical demography can only be taken as an indicator to illustrate trends and developments.27 Deering; pp. 12-3. See Bryson; pp. 74/83: By 1750 the population had only increased to 11,000. See Thomis (a); p. 2: Heestimates the number of inhabitants to be 17,000 in 1779.28 Bryson; p. 99; Thomis (a); p. 2. See Lowe/Richards; p. 25: Apparently the bulk of the population increase occurred in the1820s.29Thomis (a); p. 24: There was some migration of better-off workers to suburbs like New Radford or Hyson Green, but that hadno impact on such a massive problem.


9/81

- 9 -

which was owned by the Musters family. To the North and the South were the common fields andmeadows, which have been described as the biggest stumbling block of all. 30 The commonlands were not as common as the name suggests, as they were mostly controlled by burgesses andfreeholders, who vigorously defended their users rights. A frequent though paradoxicalargument by the opponents of enclosure was health reasons, as they claimed that public interestdemanded the preservation of Nottinghams open spaces. But it can be assumed that oppositionto enclosure was primarily upheld for economical reasons. Some who held users rights on the

commons were renting them out as grazing spaces and many more were landlords who wanted tokeep their overcrowded town properties occupied.31As the population exploded, Market Square became a muddy slough and its side streets

filled with back-to-back houses springing up like clusters of dirty mushrooms. By the 1830s and1840s the whole town had become one mighty prison of bricks and mortar. The streets werenarrow, dangerous and mostly unpaved, filled with pools of filthy water or most extended dungheaps.32

Hardly a day passed [] without some unfortunate being crushed in Sheep Lane(Market Street now), either trapped between wall and wagon wheels or pounded todeath as some terrified bullock from the cattle sales in the square stampeded throughthe chaos.33

Slum property owners were erecting the maximum number of houses on a minimum of space.These notorious back-to-back dwellings were a common sight in most industrial towns of thetime. They were arranged in narrow courts closed at both ends, which were entered by yard-widetunnels eight feet high and twenty to thirty feet long. Construction was bad and sanitation crude,with a characteristic open sewer running down the centre of a court. In 1812 300 of theseenclosed courts with open sewers existed in Nottingham.34 Typical houses consisted of two orsometimes three rooms on successive storeys, each eleven feet square, with a tiny space for foodand coal under the stairs. Some had cellar dwellings in the sandstone beneath. None of thehouses had a damp course. At one end of the courts was a group of privies one for the use of upto thirty people, many situated underneath bedrooms. Many of these houses were alsoworkshops, thumping with the noise of frameworking or lace dressing. Certain stages in thelace production required high temperatures and a humid atmosphere, resulting in houses beingheated by stoves, hot water and steam, which made the thin porous walls alive with vermin.35

Living in such conditions, survival had replaced comfort as the aim of working people.36

30Welch (a); p. 8: Nottingham was prevented from expanding partly by big landowners and partly by freemen clinging to theirprivileges over the commonlands []. See Bryson; pp. 83-4: Unlike Welch Bryson only refers to the common lands when hedescribes how expansion could have saved Nottingham from throttling itself. He is not the only one who does not discuss theareas blocked by Newcastles, Middletons or the Musters property claims (e.g. Gray and Thomis fail to do so as well). Brysondoes state that the poorest inhabitants were also opponents of enclosures as they queued up in the hope of winning one of the250 burgess parts of arable land which became available on a sort of lottery basis. See Thomis (a); pp. 28/122-3/125-6: Theissue of enclosure was the most consistently recurring theme of all Nottingham elections, local and parliamentary.31Ibid; pp. 4/24/124-6. See Bryson; p. 99: He estimates slum landlords rents totalled 40,000 a year.32Bryson; p. 84/98. See Thomis (a); pp. 4/24: The Corporation took no responsibility for dealing with social or infrastructuralmatters other than providing law and order and left the dirt to accumulate. Attempts of improvements were scrapped due tocosts. Where infrastructure programmes were finally realised, they were private schemes, in which the corporation was if at all only one subscriber. See ibid; pp. 114-42 for the structure and history of the Nottingham Corporation in the late eighteenth andearly nineteenth centuries.33Bryson; p. 85.34Thomis (a); p. 24. See Engels (b); pp. 78/94 for a detailed description of these houses.35Bryson; p. 98; Thomis (a); pp. 3/24.36Ibid; p. 25.


10/81

- 10 -

1.3. Industry in Nottingham

In the 1830s Nottingham was already a rapidly industrialising town with a massive output ofcommodities. However, many of the images conjured up by the term Industrial Revolution,such as huge factories with large chimneys, or steaming locomotives, were not yet part of thepicture.37

The towns primary industrial output consisted of various textile commodities. By 1812 an

estimated half of the adult population of Nottingham was operating lace machines or stockingframes; many others worked in allied occupations. In the 1830s the hosiery industry was stilldominant, but the town had already become a centre for lace production.38Part of the lattersexpansion was due to various technological advances, especially the bobbin-net machineinvented by Heathcoat by which from 1809 the production of lace was greatly simplified, and thedemand increased proportionately in consequence of the diminished cost.39The new industryhas been described as an offshoot of the hosiery trade hence its establishment in the oldframe-work knitting centres. The industry created an entirely new field of employment for anenormous number of women and children40 drawing in many women from the surroundingareas.41In 1823 the expiration of the patent on Heathcoats machine led to a spectacular boom inthe lace industry as many seized the opportunity and entered the lace business as master

lacemakers (or twist net makers). A very brief period of amazing prosperity began whichbecame known as that of the twist net fever.42Profits soared, wages rose and unemploymentwas low even though the population increased dramatically, but inevitably after the boom therefollowed the bust in 1825.43

Eighteen months later [the workers] plight was grimmer than in 1812. Poverty andstarvation took up their double handed grip again.44

In the late 1820s until the eve of the Reform Riots the circle of boom and bust in the laceindustry was to repeat itself several times.45

Whilst the lace trade was constantly undergoing violent fluctuations, by 1809 the hosieryindustry had entered a forty-year period of almost permanent depression. The industry had a

long history in Nottingham with the town having been its centre since the eighteenth century.The long lasting depression has a complex set of reasons, of which Thomis gives a detailedaccount. Contributing to the depression were the long lasting wars with Revolutionary and laterNapoleonic France, as trading with overseas markets declined and at times collapsed.Furthermore, the stocking trade suffered by a change in fashion as trousers become morepopular. However, according to Thomis these circumstances only brought to a head evils fromwhich the trade had long been suffering. For him overproduction lay at the heart of the ongoingdepression. With the growing population of the town, the production of stockings increasedsteadily. Also, new designs of stocking frames resulted in the flooding of the market with the so

37Bryson; p. 84; Gray; p. 31; Kayne; pp. 88-9: A railway link was not opened until 1839. However, Nottingham already had aneffective infrastructure for the transportation of large quantities of commodities as in 1796 the Nottingham canal linked theCromford Canal with the Trent, turning the borough into in inland port.38 Thomis (a); pp. 13-4: Woollen and silk commodities were also produced in Nottingham even though they were mainlyassociated with Derby and Leicester.39Engels (b); pp. 55-6.40Pinchbeck; p. 209.41OBrien; p. 5.42Gray; p34. See Gaunt; p. 172: Newcastle noted in 1824 that The Town & trade has never been in a more thriving condition andthat there are Many foreigners in the Town buying lace. See Lowe/Richards; p. 25: Here the fever is described as lace mania.In the 1820s the number of bobbin-net machines increased five fold to 5,000. The boom resulted in a dramatic increase ofpopulation in Nottingham and the surrounding parishes Sneinton, Lenton, Basford and Bulwell.43Bryson; pp. 93-4; Gray; p. 34; Thomis (a); pp. 2-3.44Bryson; p. 94.45Ibid; p. 94; Gray; p. 34.


11/81

- 11 -

called cut-up stockings, worse in quality but much cheaper in production and price as theyrequired less labour. With ever more people trying to earn a living in the trade, hence producingever more stockings, wages fell dramatically, making it necessary to produce even more tocompensate the loss in pay. Between 1812 and 1844 years of static export trade and onlymodestly increased home demand the number of stocking frames rose from 30,000 to50,000.46

Despite various innovations in the design of the industrys principal machine, the stocking-

frame, one remarkable aspect of the hosiery industry was its basically static nature. The framesbasic design was unchanged since Tudor times, with its motive power supplied by its operator.47The production and distribution relations not only within the hosiery but also the majority of thelace industry, were also essentially unchanged since the early days of the spread of the capitalistmode of production in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.48 The bulk of the industrialoutput of the town was still produced by the so-called domestic or putting-out system. Themajority of textile workers produced in their own homes, mostly with rented tools, receiving rawmaterials from and delivering the results of their work to merchants who were in the process ofbecoming employers.49 It would be imprecise to brand such merchants capitalists, also theartisan workers were not yet proletarians. Although most of them did not own any means ofproduction, they did not sell their labour on the market but sold commodities produced by

hypostatising their labour on rented frames, often to the very person owning the frames. Theprocesses which pressed workers into what was to become the industrial proletariat were stillunfolding and in this domestic system, the workers were even more vulnerable than factoryworkers. It was much harder to organise50 in a system where workers were scattered in smallproduction units competing with each other, rather than being concentrated in large workshopsor factories. Furthermore, any slump in demand hit the artisans first and hardest. Whilst theyhad to rent frames and finance the other raw materials necessary for the production process,normally by piling up debts, they were unable to sell or forced to sell the finished textiles at muchlower rates in case of a drop in demand. Domestic workers debts could therefore easily spiral outof control. To make matters worse, these production relations simplified the common practice ofhosiers not paying the producers the full rates due, because of the real or alleged bad quality ofcommodities.51

That such a system, defying common clichs about the industrial revolution, was anything butatypical lead Thompson to conclude that the factory hands, [] far from being the eldestchildren of the industrial revolution, were late arrivals.52Around the time of the Reform RiotsNottinghams industrial output did not yet come out of factories but rather artisans homeswhose occupants lived a life of grinding, stupefying toil. Their misery ran like a dirty threadthrough Nottinghams industrial life.53

46Thomis (a); pp. 6/29-33.47Ibid; pp. 32-3.48Braudel; p. 620; Holderness; pp. 106-7.49Hobsbawm (a); pp. 36-7.50Bryson; p. 87; Thomis (a); pp. 28/32-3. See ibid; pp. 50-76: He gives an account of the early history of trade unionism, which isessentially a long history of defeated strikes. See ibid; pp. 27-8: Thomis refers to difficulties in organising the local workers whowere interested in organisation only during times of depression []. A similar claim was made by Chartist icon OConnor, whostated that the working classes of Nottingham were not interested in what he said as long as they had a few shillings in theirpocket.51Clay (2); p. 9; Thirsk; pp. 170-1; Thomis (a); p. 29.52 Thompson; p. 211. See Thomis (a); pp. 35-6/47-8: Factory production and the large scale application of steam power inNottinghams hosiery industry did not start until the 1850s, and it came along with a diversification of Nottinghams trades. Inany debate on the merits and demerits of the factory-system it must be conceded that it was the only possible salvation left tohosiery and that its belated arrival was a tragedy to a whole generation of framework knitters. The lace industry was movingtowards factory production faster than hosiery.53Bryson; p. 87/128.


12/81

- 12 -

1.4. Living and working conditions

In January 1831, nine months before the Reform Riots, the Duke of Newcastle depicted theeconomic situation of the town and its inhabitants very optimistically. He wrote that the peoplein this county generally are in full work & at good wages (2s a day) at Nottingham the trade hasnever been better.54

His claim was one of total ignorance of working peoples especially the hosiery workers

plight, as in 1830 an estimated half of the towns 50,000 inhabitants were in receipt of poorrelief. Even though economic despair of hosiery workers was by no means a new phenomenonand the phrase as poor as a stockinger had allegedly been used since the 1740s, 55 Thomisclaimed that hosiery workers suffered a deterioration of living standards in the period 1785-1835.56

One indicator which helps to piece together a picture of the living conditions of working peoplein Nottingham is their average life expectancy. For the whole town it has been stated as being justover twenty-two, seven years lower than the national average. In some areas it was fourteen orfifteen, in parts of St Anns it touched eleven, the lowest rate recorded in the British Empire.57

Another indicator is the level of wages. The attempt of creating a clear picture of thedevelopment of wages, especially in domestic industries, is complicated by various

methodological problems,58 not least as gender bias usually distorts the picture. The incomegenerated by the family members economic activities59is usually accredited to the labour of thepatriarch only, ignoring that in artisans households everyone worked, with women not onlybeing engaged in producing commodities but also in unpaid reproductive work.60Although heprovides a large body of empirical evidence regarding wage rates and developments, Thomis is anexample for historians who even fail to reflect their gender bias by at least admitting that they donot depict the situation of all workers but rather that of adult male workers. He claims that livingconditions of hosiery workers were not yet deprived in the late eighteenth century, when wageswere said to have been 10/- to 12/- a week, and in the skilled segments of production as high as30/-. In the 1790s the wars against revolutionary France initially had no negative effect as themilitary bought huge quantities of commodities. By 1809 this had changed, with enormous

consequences for the level of wages. At the beginning of the Luddite uprisings even the highestpaid labourers like the silk workers were earning no more than 12/-, whilst 7/3 were seen asrelatively high wages. In 1826 the high paid workers wages were dropping further to 9/- or 10/- aweek, in 1827 it was reported that on average eighty hours of work generated as little as 6/- to 7/-a week for most workers. In the 1830s, estimated average wages of hosiery workers had fallen by30-50 percent since the beginning of the century.61OBrien refers to female framework knittersearning 2/6, indicating that Thomis fails to even mention a blatant gender wage gap in the

54Gaunt; p. 74.55Bryson; p. 87/94; Gray; p. 34; Thomis (a); p. 14.56Thomis (a); pp. 14/18: Thomis choice of the year 1835 is an entirely arbitrary date in this context, for there was to be noimprovement for a further twenty years.57Bryson; p. 99; Kayne; p. 93; Thomis (a); p. 24; Welch (a); p. 14.58Thomis (a); pp. 14-5: Not only have seasonal variations to be taken into consideration, but also other factors like the hosierspractice of assigning the available work to the highest possible number of workers to maximise income generated by frame rents.Employers also retained a discretionary power to vary payment according to their perception of the quality of the work and makedeductions for wastage and error. Furthermore the figures available must be treated with care as employers tended to cite themost favourable and trade union committees the worst figures available. The manufacturer believed the stockinger to be a liar;the stockinger believed the manufacturer to be a cheat.59Thirsk; pp. 173-4.60 Shepard; pp. 83-4: Thirsks and Shepards criticisms, although made in respect to the historians of a different period areequally valid for many accounts of the nineteenth centurys socioeconomic history. See OBrien; p. 4: The man was not the familybreadwinner. Each member would contribute financially, and each contribution was essential to keep the family from starvation.61Thomis (a); p. 15-19.


13/81

- 13 -

hosiery industry.62 The income of lace workers was considerably better. Wages were rising toastronomical heights in the short-lived boom of 1824-5, when some workers were paid wages ashigh as 5. In the following slump wages fell to 24/- in 1829, 18/- in 1833 and 12/- in 1838. 63Again Thomis does not mention that for the majority of the workforce in the lace industry, whichwas the predominantly female64 wages will have been considerably lower. Pinchbeck refers toreports of women working embroidering silk bobbin net shawls, working fourteen hours whilstearning only 1/- a day.65

Wage figures alone cannot give a firm base to Thomis claim of deteriorating living standards.However, the development of prices provides further evidence, as prices soared at the same timeas wages declined. Estimations vary drastically, sometimes stating a rise of 25 but sometimes upto 150 percent for food and other necessaries of life in the years 1792-1832. Thomis rathercautious estimate which would nevertheless have been disastrous is of prices rising by abouta quarter, whilst wages fell by about a third of the 1785 level.66

In addition to the expenses for food etc, the overwhelming majority of Nottinghams textileworkers had to pay frame rents to the hosiers, which amounted to about one sixth of weeklywages.67In case of the common unemployment the frame was either lost, or those renting it werefurther spiralling into debt.68

Combining the figures of wages and expenses, Thomis claim of declining living standards can

be expressed in the increasing length of a working day. The number of working hours necessaryto afford clothes, housing and food, not mentioning the hours of reproductive work, have beenestimated at ten hours in 1760, fourteen in 1821 and sixteen in 1835.69

A typical workers diet, at most times little over starvation level, contained nothing but oldmilk, barley-bread and potatoes. At times, workers could not afford bread or potatoes.Commodities like tea, butter, tobacco, ale etc. were often unaffordable. In 1845 the diet ofNottingham workers was described as low and precarious, consisting of bread, potatoes andherrings, all other or better articles [being] strangers to the tables of the poor.70

Thomis concludes that in the five decades between the 1780s and the 1830s there:

[] was not a uniform decline, either in its impact or its timing, [however] it is clearthat during the final decade of the period Nottingham was in almost perpetual

depression, alleviated by only very transitionary periods of buoyancy, and that distresswas extremely severe and very widespread.71

One group of workers who had to suffer exceptionally were children, especially in the cottagesand small workshops. Sixteen hours a day were a normal workload, with child workers being:

[] kept up until 11 pm or midnight, boys of five winding yarn, little girls standing onstools, to be able to see the candles on the tables, as they stitched away at seams.

62OBrien; pp. 6-7.63Bryson; p. 87; Thomis (a); p. 15-19: As with the hosiery workers, wages were falling, and attendant pressures of longer hoursand harder work were developing.64OBrien; p. 6: [] the census of 1844 revealed that in all the branches of the lace industry in Great Britain there were 15,876women over twenty, 6,040 girls under twenty, to compare with only 5,373 men and 1,082 boys.65Pinchbeck; p. 211.66Thomis (a); pp. 19-20. See ibid; pp. 20-1 for descriptions of various food and coal riots.67Ibid; p. 28: It was the ambition of many [] that they might one day become frame-owners themselves and enjoy the profits offrame-rents, and so they chose to regard them as inviolable property rights.68Bryson; p. 87.69Thomis (a); pp. 17-8.70Ibid; p. 21.71Ibid; p. 26.


14/81

- 14 -

Mothers would pin them on their knees, giving them a slap on the head if they fellasleep before their stint was finished.72

There has been an intense debate about whether the spread of factory production resulted inan improvement of working conditions,73 although it did not include a reduction of workinghours.74 That such claims can be supported by various pieces of evidence, must not beunderstood as a defence of the horrors of Victorian factory work75 but rather as a necessarychallenge of the romanticised myths of domestic workers living and working conditions.76

In both settings, working in Nottinghams textile industry had drastic physical consequences.Workers operating stocking frames were said to be identifiable by their physical appearance asthey were undergoing rapid physical deterioration from an early age and often had respiratoryand digestive organ diseases from [their] early association with the cramping frame.77

Under these circumstances it seems highly surprising that in 1834 eighty-four percent ofchildren were connected at least officially to an educational establishment of some sort,mostly Sunday Schools.78

Sunday schools were advocated as a factor in promoting social cohesion and as part ofthe answer to crime, [but] a person, taught to read the Bible might also lay hands uponthe Age of Reason or the Rights of Man. If Sunday Schools were intended to keeppeople in their places, they also gave to some the means of changing places.79

1.5. The struggle for parliamentary reform

In its immediate aftermath, the French revolution consolidated old corruption by unitinglandowners and manufacturers in a common panic.80But although the downfall of the FrenchAncien Rgime revived its British counterpart,81the post 1688 class compromise82was no longerable to incorporate the drastic socioeconomic transformations without adjustment. Fast-growingtowns like Manchester, Birmingham, Bradford and Leeds had no parliamentary representation,

72Bryson; pp. 85-6: Child labour was common in many industries. Children aged four or even younger were working alongsidetheir families in the textile industry, others toiled in coal pits from the age of six, or worked at brickyards in Mapperley or assweeping chimneys hardening their flesh with vinegar and being encouraged to hurry by their masters lighting a fire in thehearth.73Ibid; pp. 98-9; Pinchbeck; p. 307.74 Ibid; p. 188: In 1833 it was found that in Nottingham [] although the days work was considered to be twelve hours, theactual practice was to extend that period to sixteen and sometimes eighteen hours when the demand was pressing.75Engels (b); pp. 203-6; Bryson; pp. 98-9: Also in Nottinghams factories children suffered most: Sick and fainting, supervisedby an overseer with a horsewhip, they eked out their miserable existence []. Knuckles scraped to the bones, joints nipped bycogs, the children frequently collapsed with fatigue into the machines. Robert Blincoe [] described seeing a girl of eight whosedress caught in a shaft. She was dragged into the machinery and spun round like a rag doll, her bones cracking and her bloodspraying as if from a wrung-out mop. Thomis (a); pp. 21-3: Even though a worker in a factory setting, operating a bobbin-netmachine, might have been relatively better paid and therefore better fed, Thomis states that s*he would have been even moreprone to chest infections than if s*he was working in one of the small, low, ill ventilated attic workshops.76See Engels (b); pp. 50-2: This account is a classic example for such a depiction of the domestic industries.77Thomis (a); pp. 2-3/22-3: The propertied in Nottingham had a comparatively enlightened attitude towards the need of publichealth institutions, notably e.g. by the opening of General Hospital in 1782, however this could barely scratch the surface of theproblem.78Thomis (a); p. 8.79Ibid. See Le Bon; pp. 85/88/98: He feared the acquisition of knowledge [] which [] is a sure method of driving a man torevolt and wrote that the worst enemies of society, the anarchists, are recruited among the prize-winners of schools. SeeThomis (a); p. 9: Sunday Schools also provided a minimum of education for adults and Nottingham has been claimed as thebirthplace of the Adult School movement. Hoare; pp. 284-8: Although the working class Operatives Libraries were not foundedbefore the second half of the 1830s, at the eve of the Reform Riots there were limited possibilities for working class people toget their hands on books, as in the Artisans Library, set up in 1824 by well meaning middle class people. It admitted apprenticesas well as artisans or skilled craftsmen, and charged a quarterly subscription of 1s. 6p.80Thompson; p. 195; Wright; pp. 20-3.81Thompson; pp. 216-7.82Engels (a); p. 8939 (see MEW volume 22; pp. 301-2): Engels described the outcome of the so called Glorious Revolution as aclass compromise between aristocracy, gentry and bourgeoisie. The monarchy continued to exist but parliamentary sovereigntywas guaranteed and Parliament was given powers to keep the monarchy in check.


15/81

- 15 -

whilst hamlets could send one or even two MPs, often controlled by landed magnates, toWestminster.83 By the 1830s the issue of parliamentary reforms had been on the agenda ofreformists and radicals for decades. Many gatherings had taken place and numerous lives hadbeen lost, as in the Peterloo Massacre on the 16thAugust 1819, when approximately fifteen diedand hundreds were injured as people were slashed and trampled by charging cavalry troopers.84

In the prelude to the Reform Bill Crisis 1830-2, parliamentary reform had been an umbrellaterm for numerous groups and individuals campaigning by various means for very diverse aims

and agendas, although male campaigners were virtually unanimous in their determination towithhold the suffrage from women. The complex debates and internal fault lines within thefactions of reformers and radicals were interwoven with socioeconomic upheavals in all aspectsof social relations in Britain, changing power and production relations, and shifting theframework of the parliamentary regime.

New interests were clearly not adequately represented in Parliament. The conflict ofcourt versus country was to be replaced by conflicts between industry and agriculture,between town and countryside [], between labour and capital. The England of Burkewas to become the England of Marx.85

Why various persons and groups who were identified or identified themselves as part of theworking classes86did pursue parliamentary reform, often demanding all-male suffrage, has beenmuch debated.87Dinwiddy argues that this can be partly explained by the ineffectiveness of otherstrategies as on many occasions direct action had been tried with very little positive result. Theissue was intensively and diversely debated, and working class support for parliamentary reformvaried hugely in different parts of the country.88 However claims of a swelling surge towardspolitical change, here to be understood as changes within the framework of parliamentarypolitics, were not unfounded.89 Allegedly there were members of the working classes inNottingham who indulged hopes that even moderate parliamentary reform might result in analleviation of suffering a change of fortune after the slumps which followed the short boom inthe 1820s.90

Although far from having coherent attitudes towards the question, the majority of the localrepresentatives of what was constructed as the middle classes91 were supporting moderateparliamentary reform. The Whig dominated Nottingham Corporation reflected nationwidepatterns as it consistently attempted to lead and give expression to reformist and radical

83Hernon; p. 58. See Thomis (a); pp. 143-68 for details on the parliamentary borough of Nottingham before 1832. See Journal;15thOctober 1831: As a pro-reform petition, undersigned by 36,000 inhabitants of Edinburgh was presented to the Lords, theJournalreferred to Edinburgh as having 140,000 inhabitants, 36 of which eligible to vote.84Hernon; pp. 28-46; Thompson; p. 899.85Wright; pp. 10-1.86Ibid; p. 12: Socioeconomic change always determines and is reciprocally determined by transformation of class structures. Classin the rapidly industrialising Britain was, as always, a complex category which has to be differentiated carefully, as Wrightillustrates for the working classes where divisions ran deep, [so] between the domestic and factory workers. However Wrightargues that despite the complexity of the category, it was very relevant to people in early nineteenth century Britain as the simpleclass model was held by many contemporaries and was a potent catalyst of political change.87See Thompson; pp. 909-10: [] for the workers of this and the next decade [the 30s and 40s], [the vote] was a symbol whoseimportance it is difficult for us to appreciate, our eyes dimmed by more than a century of the smog of two-party parliamentarypolitics. According to Thompson the vote had symbolic value and was a yet unknown tool allegedly to exercise social controlover their conditions of life and labour.88Dinwiddy; pp. 25/64-5. See Thomis (a); pp. 217-25 for details on pre 1831 activities of reformers in Nottingham.89Bryson; p. 94.90Ibid; p. 94; Gray; pp. 31/34.91Wright; pp. 33-6: Who exactly constituted the middle classes is intensively debated. In the discourse of the time the categorywas often used synonymously with the equally vague one of respectable people. See ibid; p. 12: Many of the professional middleclasses were little more than hangers-on of landed society. See Dinwiddy; pp. 55-60 for details on the middle classes and theirattitudes towards the bill. See Thomis (a); p. 11 many members of the middle classes in Nottingham had their backgrounds in theworking classes as the development of the textile industry had generated a certain degree of social mobility so that by the middleof the nineteenth century, the great majority of the master framework-knitters and even some hosiers came from the ranks of thestockingers themselves or the agricultural population of the surrounding areas.


16/81

- 16 -

movements whilst resisting any attempts of more thorough-going reformers to take over. TheCorporations political mission was as much to avoid revolution as to achieve reform [].92

Amongst the people who can be defined as members of the ruling classes, positions on theissue of parliamentary reform were complex and opposing fractions were irreconcilable. Even forthe Whigs in Westminster, the party93 which was to push forward the issue within theparliamentary system, parliamentary reform was a major source of dissent for many years. Thewhole party consisted of a rather uneasy coalition of aristocrats and professional men, with the

former tending to call the tune, controlling a considerable number of seats in the Commons.94In1830 a new government was lead by Earl Grey, who was as much a thoroughbred aristocrat asthe rest of his cabinet and had little sympathy for the developing workers movement.95Howeverit was Greys administration which introduced the Reform Bill, with debates beginning in theCommons on the 31stMarch 1831.96At the bills core lay the reorganisation of constituencies. Italso proposed an arguably minor extension of the franchise. The reorganisation of constituenciesaimed at disfranchising many rotten boroughs whilst others were to be reduced to sending onlyone MP to the Commons. A number of these seats were to be given to new constituencies,strengthening the parliamentary representation of the new industrialised centres. The franchisein the counties was to remain with the 40/- freeholders; in the boroughs it was to be held by alloccupiers of buildings with an annual value of 10.97

Why Greys government finally went ahead with parliamentary reform has been debated atlength, e.g. discussing whether hope for political gain or fear of revolution had been thegovernments primary motivation for pushing their Reform Bill.98 For Hernon, the popularmovements activities outside parliament, whose often uttered call [for reform] had become tooloud to ignore any longer was forcing the proposal of a bill.99In this logic Grey sought a way toavoid revolution as it had occurred on the continent, a way which reacted to ongoing economicand social upheavals without endangering the established social hierarchies. This interpretationsees the Whigs recipe to avoid revolution in granting concessions whilst they were terrified ofthe possible repercussions if they should fail.100Favouring a different approach Dinwiddy arguesthat although the state of feeling in the country was a major factor in [the Whigs] deliberationsthroughout the Reform Bill Crisis, at no stage did it force them into anything like a capitulationand focuses on the political advantages the Whigs were hoping to gain by pushing their version ofparliamentary reform, knowing that the issue would enjoy large scale public support.101 Thisinterpretation can be supported by arguing that bold claims like Goldsmiths, that the bill

92Ibid; pp. 142/231.93See Wright; pp. 1-10: There were no large political parties in Commons and Lords in the modern sense: the terms Whig andTory were used, but normally only of the front bench professional politicians, those who were organised in small groups based onfriendship, blood or marriage ties [] or a rather vague sharing of attitudes. [] the professional politicians accounted for onlyone section of the House. There were also between a hundred and two hundred [] Kings Friends [who usually supported thegovernment]. Their numbers included court officers, civil servants, government contractors, army and naval officers, thoseholding government pensions and sinecures and those sitting for government boroughs. Finally there were the mass ofindependent members who formed a majority of the eighteenth-century House of Commons. Some were lawyers and merchants,but most were country gentlemen [and] tended to support the government.94Dinwiddy; pp. 1-5.95Wright; pp. 31.96Goldsmith; pp. 470-1.97Wright; pp. 33-6. See ibid; p. 39: In the second Reform Bill the rules for the franchise in the boroughs were changed meaningthat e.g. resident freemen were to retain their votes.98Dinwiddy; p. 50-1.99Hernon; p. 58. See Thompson; pp. 887-1: This argument has also been made by Thompson who stated that the Reform BillCrisis was not the consequence of a growing middle-class reform movement, with a working class-tail pushing against the oldcorruption, but in reverse it was the people from whom the agitation arose, forcing the middle-class to go along as they werethe ones who could achieve a line of retreat acceptable to all, i.e. a compromise which would keep the working classes at baywhilst being tolerable by all but characters like Newcastle. However this approach does not reflect the complex fractures withinwhat can be constructed as working, middle and ruling classes.100Wright; pp. 31-3.101Dinwiddy; p. 55.


17/81

- 17 -

included a greater amount of change than had been anticipated either by friends or enemies,102greatly overemphasise the consequences of the bill. The carefully measured extension of thefranchise and in particular the reorganisation of the constituencies aimed not at widening publicparticipation in parliamentary politics, but at broadening the basis of the Whigs political power.The pre-1832 organisation of constituencies had given the Tories an advantage, as the majority ofthe rotten boroughs were dominated by them. Therefore an attack on the rotten boroughswould result in a major shift in the power balance inside the Commons. It is also noteworthy that

plans to abolish a number of rotten boroughs and to increase the number of county memberswere not designed to undermine the essential control of the system by the landed aristocracyand gentry, but to stabilise it. This was attempted by strengthening the legitimate influence ofthe landed classes over elections and a corresponding reduction of influences whose legitimacywas questionable.103

The proponents of this very moderate parliamentary reform in Nottingham and the rest ofBritain were confronted with formidable opposition, not least by those within the ruling classeswho were to lose power by the disfranchisement of many rotten boroughs. This opposition wasperhaps most prominently represented by one of the most despised characters in Nottinghamshistory, the embodiment of all the clichs of the landed aristocrat, 104 Henry Fiennes PelhamClinton, the fourth Duke of Newcastle. He was an ultra-Tory of whom even Wellington said

there never was such a fool. Newcastle himself took pride in saying that he caused a riotwherever he went.105Economically and politically he was largely unsuccessful with most of hisschemes and after 1830 he was constantly trying to avoid bankruptcy.106He was not an opponent,but an enemy of the Whigs Reform Bill,107as it were also some of his constituencies who werescheduled to be disfranchised, among them all of his seats in Yorkshire.108

At first Newcastle had no need to worry, as the first Reform Bill was defeated in the House ofCommons after seven nights of debate. However, Greys defeat was followed by a GeneralElection in April and May 1831 which went badly for the opponents of reform, who lost numerousMPs, therefore securing future attempts for parliamentary reform a majority in the Commons. 109In Nottingham both reform candidates were elected110 and even Newcastle, used to obedientvoters, was largely unsuccessful with his candidates. As even Newark failed to return a Newcastlefamily representative for the first time111the Duke wrote furiously in his diary: I shall raise myrents to the double & see how they like that.112

102Goldsmith; p. 471.103Dinwiddy; p. 49-51; Wright; pp. 33-6.104Gaunt; p. xi: In spite of owning property in Yorkshire, London and Wales, Newcastle was at heart a country gentleman andlanded magnate who spent the majority of his time and energies upon projects associated with his wide ranging Nottinghamshireinterests.105Bryson; p. 94; Thomis/Preston/Wigley; pp. 85-6. See Thomis (a); p. 149: Newcastles reactionary views were so extreme as toenable even bourgeoisies like the Nottingham Whigs as to appear as popular egalitarians. See Gaunt; pp. 74-5: An example forNewcastles character is an event in January 1831. Whilst on his way to a ball in Newark, he was told that a large mob waited forhim and was insulting Every body that came up thinking that I might be in the carriage. He continued to Newark, determined torather Encounter any degree of riot than to incur the disgrace of retreat & to give to give the rabble a triumph. On arrival hemanaged to get through some scuffles uninjured, satisfied that if I had not persevered in coming to the Town that I Should haveSacrified my reputation & done irreparable mischief by giving courage to a set of miscreants.106Welch (a); pp. 1-2.107 Gaunt; p. 77: I alone remain fixed in my determination & have to fight the cause almost single handed whilst the othergentlemen of the County driven by by fears or otherwise are ingulphing [the] cause of reform. See ibid; pp. 80-1: ForNewcastle, parliamentary reform was aiming to overthrow the Nation.108Gaunt; p. xlii. See Welch (a); p. 1: Newcastle controlled several MPs: Before 1832 he had five M.P.s whom he nominated, twofor Boroughbridge, two for Aldborough [] and one for Newark. In 1830 he had seven candidates.109Gaunt; p. xlii; Goldsmith; p. 472.110Bryson; p. 94.111Gaunt; p. xlii. See ibid; pp. 78-9: Newcastles Newark candidate, a Sir Griesley was very ill received & very roughly handled []there was so great a riot that he induced to retire [] until [] the Mayor had sworn in special Constables.112Gaunt; pp. 80-2: Newcastles electoral defeats in Nottinghamshire lead him to conclude that The county is carried by []revolutionists [] not one man in it worthy of any distinction above the Swinish multitude.


18/81

- 18 -

Following the elections a second Reform Bill passed the Commons with a solid majority andwas officially sent to the Lords on the 22nd September 1831.113 In Nottingham 12,000-13,000persons signed a petition in support of the Reform Bill, which was presented in the Lords.114

But on Saturday, October 8th, the House of Lords rejected the Reform Bill, by a majority of41.115The defeat was not a real surprise, but according to the Mercurythere were very few thatentertained the remotest idea the majority would be so large. Notable was the position of thechurch as 22 Bishops voted against the Reform Bill.116A month later their effigies were burned

before the Guy at many November 5thbonfires,117but before that more serious expressions ofanger were to manifest themselves.

113Goldsmith; p. 472.114Bryson; p. 94; Thomis (a); pp. 221-2: The number of signatories stated varies in different sources. Pro-reform petitions hadbecome a regular feature in the Reform Bill Crisis, repeatedly being signed by thousands of people. See Journal; 15thOctober1831: During the debates in the Lords various petitions were presented, the pro-reform one by the inhabitants of Nottingham byLord Holland. He did so as Newcastle presented his anti-reform petition, resulting in an entertaining debate between the two. SeeMercury; 8th October 1831: According to this the pro-reform petition was signed in the short space of only three days. SeeReview; 30thSeptember 1831: The relative failure of the anti reform petition was subject of mockery by proponents of the ReformBill: Some of the tories, in an evil hour for their cause, have ventured to get up a hole and corner petition; [] on Friday andSaturday last, the petition lay at the County-hall for signatures, and during the whole of those two days, up to four o'clock onSaturday afternoon it had received the amazing number of 20 signatures!!!115 Bryson; p. 94; Hernon; p. 58; Journal; 8th October 1831: On the Lord Chancellor declaring the state of the numbers, noexpression of feeling took place. See Mercury; 15thOctober 1831: Millions of subjects require a restitution of their rights; theKing is ready to restore them; but one hundred and ninety Peers withstand the just demand.116Ibid: TheMercurycontradicts itself regarding the exact number of opposing bishops, stating once that there had been 21 butelsewhere giving the number of 22. Only two bishops voted for the Reform Bill.117Welch (b); p. 5.


19/81

- 19 -

2. The Reform Riots

The news of Reform Bills defeat in the House of Lords reached Nottingham during the annualGoose Fair,118on Saturday 8thOctober 1831 at about half-past eight oclock in the evening withthe arrival of Pickfords van. According to the Mercurythe outcome did not come as a surprise tothe people of Nottingham, where many still indulged hopes that it would to go intoCommittee.119None of the used sources report any form of direct action in response to this news

during the night to Sunday.

2.1. Sunday

The next morning a coneonrae of people witnessed the arrival of the mail coach in the yardof The White Lion. A passenger on the coach said that in London they were beating to arms,which was received with cheers.120

In Clumber Street Mr. Hedderlys shop became the first target of direct action. Apparently thedruggist stood in front of his shop, watching the crowd. The Mercury recounts rumours ofHedderly using some offensive word or gestures towards the crowd before retreating into hisshop, but:

[] we cannot learn that anything of the kind in reality took place, but a multitude isvery easily excited, and the report caused some of his upstairs windows to be broken,though this was done by mere youths.121

From Clumber Street the disturbances spread into Pelham Street where about the same timeDr. Manson was struck by a missile hurled at him and it became apparent that the irritation wasprogressively gaining strength.122Like Hedderly, Manson was well known for his opposition ofthe Reform Bill. Their names had been printed by the Reviewlittle more than a week before asthey had, along with other respectable inhabitants signed a petition against some of theclauses of the Bill [] in terms of respectful moderation.123 The Reviewhad written that thesignatories, gentlemen who have viewed the reform bill with the utmost anxiety and alarm, will

unquestionably thank us for making known their names to the world.124

Exactly what happened during the early afternoon is not detailed in the used sources, but theMercurydescribes that as the day went on, the violence of the multitude gathered strength.125At the close of the afternoon the crowd in the side streets of Clumber Street grew more denseand stones were thrown at windows.126

As soon as it became dusk, the individuals engaged in giving vent to their passionswere flanked by several hundred young men and females who were drawn by the spotthrough curiosity, but whose presence greatly retarded the constables in their duty andthe throwing of stones, brick-hats, &c. increased.127

118Gray; p. 34.119Mercury; 15thOctober 1831; Fellows/Freeman; p. 51; Hicklin; p. 159.120Mercury; 15thOctober 1831; Thomis/Preston/Wigley; p. 85.121Ibid.122Ibid.123Hicklin; p. 159.124Review; 30thSeptember 1831: This is further discussed in 5.3. See Appendix X. for the full list.125Hicklin; p. 160.126Mercury; 15thOctober 1831; Fellows/Freeman; p. 51; Wylly; p. 96: On the evening [] a great number of people assembled inthe market-place and proceeded to break the windows of obnoxious individuals.127Mercury; 15thOctober 1831.


20/81

- 20 -

This passage is notable as it mentioned for the first time attempts to repress the riots, as yetonly by constables.128Furthermore, it also mentions women for the first time, even though theyare depicted as passive spectators.

The rioting in the evening took place whilst Sundays congregations were attending theirgatherings.129 The parallel occurrence of rioting and worshipping gave Hicklin, himself anopponent of the Reform Bill who had signed the anti-reform petition,130 an opportunity todescribe the wickedness of the rioters:

[] as the song of praise, or the prayer of faith ascended from the worshippingcongregations then assembled in the various churches and chapels of the town, theyells of an infuriated rabble, and the crash of broken windows, broke in withunwelcome sound on these sacred devotions, and told too fearfully that the work ofdevastation was commencing.131

The second known person wounded in the riots was the mayor who apparently hurriedtowards the rioters, but was wounded on the head by a stone, thrown down and trampled on bythe mob, his leg being much bruised.132

The notorious Riot Act was read and the attempts of repressing the crowds increased:

[] the police officers exerted themselves to seize upon the offenders, but without

avail, as it was utterly impossible to discover from what hands the stones were hurled,but each crash of the glass produced a loud shout, which was not unfrequently echoedby those who were idle spectators, yet who, in the excitement of the moment, gave wayto the ebullition of their feelings.133

At about 7pm further direct action started, again expressed utilising the this time lesspathetically expressed contrast of worshiping and rioting:

[] when the congregations were leaving the different places of worship and thestreets were much crowded, another party of rioters attacked in Bridlesmith Gate a MrWards druggery store and then continued to the mentioned Dr Mansons house wherethey demolished a great many panes.134

After the attack on Mansons house this party of rioters marched with loud cheers towardsthe Market Square, where they made:

[] a determined attack upon the house of Mr. G.N. Wright, book-seller, Long-row.The mischief was principally done by the youths; but the moment [] the constablesattempted to seize any of them, blows from stones and heavy hands plainly evincedthat the lads were the mere instruments of more powerful agency. Not content withthrowing in the upstairs of Mr. Wright, an attempt was made to break into the shop, inwhich they unfortunately succeeded; the front was completely battered in, and thebooks, prints, stationery &c. thrown about the street.135

This passage demonstrates that the crowds were apparently able to defend themselves against

the police and were in control of the situation before the military arrived at the scene.Commanding the local military forces was Colonel Joseph Thackwell, in charge of the 15 th

128 Welch (a); pp. 9-10: As the Nottingham Watch Committee was not founded until 1836, the constables were not part of aregular paid police force but unpaid persons, only on call.129Mercury; 15thOctober 1831.130See Review; 30thSeptember 1831.131Hicklin; p. 160.132Fellows/Freeman; p. 51; Mercury; 15thOctober 1831; Wylly; p. 96.133Mercury; 15thOctober 1831.134Ibid.135Ibid.


21/81

- 21 -

Hussars, a cavalry unit stationed in Nottingham and Sheffield136, which had been involved in thePeterloo massacre.137Thackwell received the first requisition for military intervention not fromthe magistrates and the mayor of Nottingham but from those of Derby at 12pm, where the riotwas already in full swing. The town was in the hands of a mob who were breaking windows anddestroying the property of people who were obnoxious - he reacted by sending 44 soldiers andhorses.138

After the attack on Wrights bookshop Thackwells Hussars arrived at the Nottingham scene.

According to the Mercury they were received with cheers, and a great concourse commencedsinging God save the King.139 However the military started to disperse the crowds, thoughapparently without using excessive violence:

The soldiers, with great caution and forbearance, proceeded to clear the street fromthe front of Mr. Hedderlys; but even their presence could not prevent the throwing ofstones, and the smashing of the glass,140

The arrival of the military was followed by attempts to calm the crowds by prominentproponents of the Reform Bill:

Mr. Alderman Oldknow earnestly exhorted the people to refrain from violence; andMr. C. Wilkins got upon one of the stalls, in the Market-place, from which he

addressed a large multitude, and pointed out the folly of the excess; but his words,however much they might have convinced those who heard them, did not reach thepersons who comprised what may be termed the mob, for they had hastily departedthrough different avenues at the first appearance of the military [].141

Thackwell stated that the military:

[] succeeded in dispersing the crowds in various parts of the town and in themarket-place. [] Small knots of the lowest rabble, however, still continued to glidethrough dark alleys and passages, and frequently succeeded in breaking windowsbefore they could be interrupted. [] about 2 oclock two of the rioters wereapprehended [] the streets were now nearly empty, the troops withdrawn to the

barracks, an officers piquet of 20 men being left in the town.142

TheMercurygives an account of the places which were targeted:

[] in the course of the night, the houses of Mr. Bradshaw, wharfinger, Leen-side,Mr. Sharp, miller and baker, Mansfield-road, Mr. North, cheesemonger, Charlotte-street, Mr. Cooke grocery, Chapel-bar, Mr. Lowe, hosier, Pilcher-gate, and the JournalOffice were visited and outrages committed.143

136Wylly; pp. 94-5: Thackwells detailed description of the riots was written as a letter to Newcastle. The latter requested on the31stOctober an impartial account as he was desperate for first hand information about the events as he was well aware that heshould do more harm than good by appearing at Nottingham; [as] my presence will [] raise a mob.137Thomis/Preston/Wigley; p. 90.138Fellows/Freeman; p. 51; Wylly; p. 95.139 Mercury; 15th October 1831; Wylly; p. 96: Thackwells account did not mention the singing, even though this does notcontradict theMercurysclaim. This is further discussed in 5.3.140Mercury; 15thOctober 1831.141Ibid; Wylly; p. 96.142Wylly; p. 96. See Fellows/Freeman; p. 51.143Mercury; 15thOctober 1831. See Journal; 15thOctober 1831: The Journalstates that part of their offices front windows weredestroyed, that food was expropriated from the house of Sharpe and North and that the house of Mr. Kewney, a hosier was alsoattacked. Regarding the attack on their office the Journal writes: That we, as public journalists, should have incurred thedispleasure of the populace, is more, we conceive, than our conduct has [illegible] warranted. Our desire has uniformly been touphold the principles of good government [] and to promote the best interests and welfare of all classes of the community.


22/81

- 22 -

2.2. Monday

Events on Monday started with a public meeting called by town officials after the rejection ofthe Reform Bill had become known. The Mercury reports that 12,000 to 15,000 personsassembled with band and flags and were addressed by various speakers.144It seemed the TownClerks announcement that everything would pass off peacefully was about to come true as thecrowd was very well behaved.145 The only exception were some young men who had very

injudiciously though without evil intentions on the spur of the moment, prevailed with thefemales to make a flag a square of net, which was decorated with rosettes of black crape and borethe inscription The Bill and no Lords.146Here women are depicted not merely as spectators butas actively involved, even though not acting autonomously but in alliance with men.

TheMercuryclaimed that towards the end of the meeting a rather mysterious stranger, who,according to the paper,had already addressed a smaller crowd which held a meeting in the Park,went up on one of the stages and addressed the crowd, displaying some strange gestures. Themeeting broke up with the band playing God save the King,147 after the assembly had beenexhorted to peace and quietness.148

Despite most town officials confidence, the military had constantly been on high alert in theirbarracks, armed with their firearms and swords, whilst a small detachment was already in town.

Beside Thackwells Hussars and the constables, a troop of Yeomanry was stationed nearWollaton, commanded by a Major Rolleston. There were ominous signs for an outbreakoccurring, [e.g.] that the shopkeepers took the precaution of closing their shops, and all businesswas suspended. Allegedly it was also quite evident, from the stern and fierce demeanour ofmany in crowd, that deadly mischief was contemplated.149 The pro-reform Mercury washowever careful to differentiate the crowd into those who may really be termed the men ofNottingham, i.e. those who listened to the speakers pleas to behave with peace and quietnessand:

[] an organized gang [] ripe for every mischief. This gang consisted of all the lowand bad characters in this neighbourhood the pickpockets who were exerting theirtalents during the fair, and the vile and worthless of every description, who had come

to the town under the hope of picking up some plunder at the races.150However it still appeared that the military would not be called upon to crush any disturbances

that day. At half past two the Town Clerk reassured them that everything was calm, the peoplegoing home and that the troops could stand down. But within the hour the situation escalatedas some time between 3pm and 4pm Mayor and Magistrates requested military support.151

144Mercury; 15thOctober 1831. See Fellows/Freeman; p. 52: Leading liberals spoke at the event: W.F.N. Norton, Esq.; ColonelWildman; Lord Rancliffe; Thomas Wakefield, Esq.; Alderman Oldknow; Thomas Close, Esq.; Dr. Pigot, etc., addressed thepopulace and urged them to be quiet and keep the peace. See Journal; 15 thOctober 1831: Other speakers were Mr. T. Bailey, Mr.Hepner [], Mr. W.P. Smith and a Mr C. Wilkins.145Wylly; p. 96.146Mercury; 15thOctober 1831. It is unclear whether this was an adaptation of the traditional symbol often used to start food riots.See Thompson; p. 70: The traditional signal to start a food riot had been [] given by a man or a woman carrying a loaf aloft,decorated with black ribbon. Even though this is stretching the evidence the speculation is interesting that the symbol by whichuproar was to be ignited shifted from being an object connected to the reproductive sphere to a commodity, i.e. an object takenfrom the sphere of production. The banner caused some unrest. It was carried through town, but seized by another crowd whichhad held a meeting in the Park. Afterwards the Radford young men complained to the police office on Market Place. One ofThackwells Hussars then seized the banner from the second crowd which was moving towards Hockley147Ibid.148Hickley; p. 161.149Fellows/Freeman; pp. 51-2; Hicklin; p. 161; Wylly; p. 96.150Mercury; 15thOctober 1831: This is further discussed in 5.3.151Wylly; pp. 96-7.


23/81

- 23 -

By that time the lawless rabble152had already carried out a successful attack on a corn millsituated in the Forest,153belonging to Mr. Sharpe, also a signatory of the anti-reform petition.154The mill got quite badly damaged, its sails cut to pieces and flour and corn were scattered.The mills total demolition was only prevented by a party of Hussars.155

Following the attack on Sharpes mill the Riot Act was read in many places as mobs wereparading through the streets with flags and doing much injury to private property.156Crowdswere frequently attacked and dispersed, however the 75 men and horses under Thackwells

command were hardly enough to control them. He sent a message to his superiors asking forreinforcements and requested the Yeomanry to be called out.157The rioters did not wait for the repressive apparatus to organise itself more efficiently and

some armed themselves with bludgeons and iron palisades, torn up as they marched throughSneinton, and advanced after sundry minor depredations onto Colwick Hall.158The mansionwas the home of John Musters, a magistrate well known for his strict enforcement of the GameLaws.159He has been described as an arch Tory who waged a vendetta equally against radicalsand poachers and a well-known opponent of Reform. Musters himself was not present atColwick Hall at the time of the attack, but there were several of his servants, members of hisfamily and at least one visitor. His son suffered a minor injury and his wife ended up crouchingterrified under some shrubbery whilst Colwick Hall was thoroughly wrecked, plundered and

nearly burned down.160

However no one in the crowd, which was later estimated to have beenabout 1,000 strong, harmed anyone seriously in the attack. Loseby, a servant sent towards townto inform the military of the attack, was confronted by the crowd who stopped but left himunharmed.161

Returning from Colwick the crowd was allegedly:

[] uttering yells of frantic glee [expressing] the destructive intentions with which,under pretence of maintaining the rights of the people these misguided men hadassembled. Having halted for the purpose of a little deliberation, a cry to the Castlesoon announced the next object of attack.162

Thackwell describes that from about 7.30pm attacks were almost simultaneously [made] onthe House of Correction and Nottingham Castle. Bryson describes the attack against the House

152Hicklin; p. 161.153Fellows/Freeman; p. 52. See Mercury; 15thOctober 1831: By that time some windows in Hockley had already been demolished,belonging to the shop of a Mr. Smith, baker and Mr. Prickard, grocer.154See Review; 30thSeptember 1831.155Mercury; 15thOctober 1831: [] it certainly was a curious sight to see a number of little rogues of sweeps, who presented themost piebald appearance, from being plastered with flour.156Wylly; p. 97. See Mercury; 15thOctober 1831: The windows of Mr. Peter Loveitt, in York-street; of Mr. Clifton, an officer onhalf-pay, on the Mansfield-road; Mr. Tho[ma]s Berry, constable, Chesterfield-street; and Mr. Webster, constable, Derby-road,were broken, and considerable injury done. See Journal; 15thOctober 1831: At Berrys house the doors were forced in, windowsdemolished, and furniture partly damaged.157Wylly; p. 97.158 Fellows/Freeman; p. 161; Wylly; p. 97: By 6pm Thackwell had been made aware of a large mob [] proceeding towardsColwick, but neither he nor the magistrates thought it justified to split their forces and allow any part of the military to leave thetown because of the weakness of my force, and the alarming appearance of the multitude which filled the street.159Thomis (a); p. 226; Thomis/Preston/Wigley; p. 85.160Bryson; p. 95; Journal; 15thOctober 1831; 14thJanuary 1832. See Hicklin; p. 161: Mrs. Musters, who was then in ill health,eluded the fury of the mob by escaping with her attendant to an adjoining shrubbery, where they lay concealed amidst the foliagetill the hour of danger was past. See Journal; 15thOctober 1831 for a description of some of the bounty: The furniture in most ofthe rooms, including some of the most costly description, together with some valuable paintings, entirely destroyed, and jewelleryof considerable value, with some plate carried off. See also Mercury; 15thOctober 1831: Allegedly also ale and wine were seizedand promptly consumed. See Appendix V. for the full statement of Musters son.161Journal; 14thJanuary 1832: Some people pulled Loseby off his pony, to stop him from reaching the military, allegedly shoutingPull him off, he going for the soldiers whilst others said Dont hurt him.162Hicklin; p. 162. See Mercury; 15 thOctober 1831: Flushed with success, and full of desperate purposes, [the crowd was] utteringthose wild shouts which, when heard through the stillness of evening and during a period of excitement, have the most appallingeffect.


24/81

- 24 -

of Correction as a feint to divert the military, with the main body of rioters splitting up to dealwith the castle. Even though the evidence used is inconclusive as to whether the parallel attackswere coordinated or not, it forced the military, including Thackwell himself who was out in thelower part of the town with a considerable part of [his] force, to concentrate on the crowds whowere forcing in the prison doors and to repel them into the surrounding streets and alleys.Thackwell then divided his forces, distributing dismounted soldiers for the protection of [theprison], the town and the county gaol, and the gasworks.163

Due to this, the attack on the castle itself was undisturbed. It began by people extinguishing allgas lamps between St. James Church and the Riding School, which can be interpreted as thecrowds using tactics, indicating experience in direct action.164The two or three servants of theDuke of Newcastle inside the Gate House, though being promised safety, refused to open thegate,165so the crowd tried to force them. The gates first withstood attack until a panel gave way.Three people slipped through, aiming to unbar the gates, while another party made a breach inthe wall opposite to the steps leading to Standard Hill, enabling the rioters to storm thecastle.166

[Having] forced their way past the lodge, [the crowd] poured in [the building]through a broken window, smashed the doors, and set about making a vast bonfire ofthis hated, if deserted, symbol.167

About sixty people were inside the building, where they smashed the rails of the staircases,shattered windows and ripped down chandeliers. Allegedly a group of a dozen ringleaderspaused to discuss the best method of burning the place down. Eventually holes were hacked inthe floors, filled with broken tables and banisters, and set alight.168

[A] little after seven oclock in the evening, the wild shouts of the mob [] proclaimedto the town the accomplishment of their diabolical outrage.169

While someone was engaged in selling souvenirs, apparently one yard of ripped tapestry for3/-, others busied themselves for a while with the demolition of objects in the premises. Bustswere smashed and the equestrian statue of the first Duke pounded with a crowbar,170accordingto Hickley the action of a scoundrel a sign of a spirit worthy of the barbarians of the darker

ages.171About nine oclock, the spectacle was awfully grand, and viewed from whatever point,the conflagration presented an exhibition such as seldom witnessed. The grand outlineof the building remained entire whilst immense volumes of flames poured forth at thewindows []. Thousands of people thronged the Castle-yard and every spot thatcommanded a sight of the fire. [] The rain fell heavily, and the sparks came down inamazing quantities, so as literally to fall in showers. A stabl

to the castle!

Documents